Stuff

ComRes’s monthly telephone poll for the Daily Mail is out today and has topline figures of CON 42%, LAB 28%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 9%, GRN 6%. The last time the Conservatives reached the heights of 42% in any poll was way back in 2010. Full tables for the poll are here.

The poll also had a bank of questions on perceptions of the four Labour leadership contenders and whether people would vote for them. In my last post I wrote about how such questions really don’t tell us very much: none of the candidates are well known to the public, and how people would vote with x or y as leader is an extremely hypothetical question – what policies will they follow? How will the media and public react? Will the party be united, split or riven with dissent? I don’t know and neither do the poll respondents.

For what it’s worth though, the main finding here was how little there was to choose between the candidates. ComRes asked if people would vote for Labour with the four candidates, the spread was between Burnham and Corbyn on 22% down to Kendall on 18%. They asked who had what it took to be PM, Burnham, Cooper and Corbyn were essentially in a three way tie on 23%-24%. Given the standard margin of error on a poll this size, it suggests the wider public really aren’t that enthused by any of them.

“I should go on the record as saying I’m quite worried about the whole Carmichael thing because if he gets into real trouble and there is a by-election I think it goes without saying the SNP would have a very good chance of winning it and I believe it may have been Nostradamus who predicted that the Liberals losing Orkney and Shetland is one of the harbingers of the apocalypse”
_____________

The Scottish predictor Brahan Seer predicted that when there were five bridges over the River Ness in Inverness that there would be worldwide chaos. In August 1939 there were five bridges over the Ness and on September 1 the same year, Hitler invaded Poland.

He said that when there were nine bridges that there would be fire, flood and calamity. The ninth bridge was built in 1987 and in 1988 the Piper Alpha disaster happened.

A 10th bridge over the river Ness would see the UK turn into a JC Utopian Socialist paradise.

Can you spot the theme? The more bridges over the river Ness the bigger the disaster. ;-)

“The PF would be unlikely to bring charges against AC’s alleged impropriety as the alleged conduct did not affect the result of the election. There is therefore no clear public interest in bring a prosecution.”

In reverse order –

“There is therefore no clear public interest in bring a prosecution.” – It’s not a prosecution. It’s an election petition.

“alleged impropriety as the alleged conduct ” – You don’t need to say “alleged”. Carmichael’s impropriety and conduct were admitted in his original submission to the court.

“did not affect the result of the election” – That’s a “brave” statement to make, since Carmichael’s majority was only 800. In any case, it is wholly irrelevant in this case. The matters to be ascertained by the court relate to whether Carmichael breached the RPA or not.

While the views of UKPR posters on all kinds of things may be interesting for all kinds of reasons, the proceedings in this case are going ahead. There are legal arguments on both sides. The judges will listen to the (no doubt) well constructed (and incredibly lengthy) arguments by both QCs, and then we’ll see where we are.

That some posters on here are convinced that Carmichael has no legal case to answer, is really neither here nor there.

“Christ now that you mention it if you connect all the dots things do look bad!!!!
(Proceeds to don a gas mask, grab a tin of spam and go hide in a hole in the ground)”

———

No need to panic, Rivers. It’s possible this is only your first Apocalypse, and there are things you can do to live through it. Obviously a storage unit comes in handy in many, many ways, so get one before Osborne bans them altogether. Additionally, you can never have too many coffee shop loyalty cards. Be careful about wearing a scarf in public though, I have found it attracts too much attention…

Well, the debate is on YouTube, so I could reverse it to watch the details and I came to a rather different conclusion.

I saw four very intelligent people (plus the host). Two of them genuinely fight for the position, one tries to get votes wherever it comes from (AB, which is an error in my view)’ and I don’t know what Kendell is doing there, but she is very clever.

Corbyn has done what sphe has always done: answering the questions he wanted to answer, and deflecting the others. He showed that he has a lot of background knowledge (at one point he had more knowledge on the subject than the other three together). He is vulnerable on foreign affairs, but much less so than I expected.

Yvette is pretty good, but I think it’s too late and also that she wouldn’t be able to mobilise the grass root that is needed if Labour wants to win. She has also been vulnerable on a couple of points – it was very obvious that the others knew when she opened these up, but didn’t go for them, which is nice. She needs a lot more advice on the serious stuff. She could be the future of a socdem Labour Party.

AB – he is much better than what has done, but his attempt to be in the centre of a left shifting population doesn’t work. He’s needed for the LP, but not as a leader.

@Oldnat
“That some posters on here are convinced that Carmichael has no legal case to answer, is really neither here nor there.”

Correct. I’m certainly not saying that. If he didn’t have a case to answer the hearing of the petition would not be taking place.

“It’s not a prosecution. It’s an election petition.”
Technically true. However, such petitions are very rarely heard as they are tantamount to prosecutions due to the implications for the subject of the petition being found in breach – breach of s.106RPA is a criminal (rather than civil) offence.

“did not affect the result of the election” – “That’s a “brave” statement to make, since Carmichael’s majority was only 800. In any case, it is wholly irrelevant in this case. The matters to be ascertained by the court relate to whether Carmichael breached the RPA or not.”
It’s not irrelevant. The petitions in the Woolas and Rahman cases (the most recent such cases) were both brought by parties that had lost the election allegedly due to the breaches of the RPA by the defendant/respondent. The law does not exist in s vacuum. Not all petitions are heard. In election cases they are very rarely heard because they are pointless – I.e. there is no public interest in the petition being heard. This case is only being heard because it was decided to be in the public interest to hear it.

Anyway the pertinent question for s.106RPA is not whether the actions of AC affected how many votes he got but whether they were done to deprive the SNP in his constituency of any votes. Clearly, this is for a court to decide. But for the reasons stated above, this is not a matter any court is likely to be quick to find.
What if, for example, the court were to find, that the purpose of AC’s actions were to deprive the Labour party of votes in Scotland, or in the rest of the UK?

Of course Carmichael’s action was to deprive the SNP of votes that is why the incorrect memo was released.

However, I suppose the point is: If Carmichael had told the truth; that he had authorised the leak, would that cause him to lose votes and lose the GE? It is reasonable to assume that it would have hurt him at the ballot box.

“Anyway the pertinent question for s.106RPA is not whether the actions of AC affected how many votes he got but whether they were done to deprive the SNP in his constituency of any votes etc etc”

Sorry, but that is total nonsense.

There is nothing in the RPA which envisages that kind of scenario being the purpose of the legislation. What the judges will be considering is whether Carmichael’s conduct constitutes a breach of the requirements of the RPA.

“What if, for example, the court were to find, that the purpose of AC’s actions were to deprive the Labour party of votes in Scotland, or in the rest of the UK?”

The legal opinions that I quoted concentrate on this as a critical issue. Not that the court is likely to determine what was the specific intent of Carmichael’s conduct, unless it is to agree with the petitioners that it was to secure his election in O&S.

Carmichael has denied that this was his intent – but declined to say what his purpose was. [1]

Indeed, how could the court establish what his purpose was without a subsequent stage in the proceedings in which Carmichael was examined, and cross-examined, on that very issue? [2]

For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I have no opinion as to whether Carmichael’s actions breached the RPA.

This case is the first in which some of the legal issues will be tested, and anyone who imagines that they know the answers is probably living in an imaginary world.

It seems that you are making the same error as some of the more enthusiastic anti-LD people, of bringing party political outcomes into consideration far too early.

Once the legal issues are settled, then we can determine the political consequences that might result. The consequences of “Leakgate” itself have already happened – with very unhappy results for the leakers who seemed to have thought might be their salvation.

[1] There is a pertinent political issue involved. If, for example, Carmichael was to say that his intention was to damage the SNP and save Labour seats in the rest of Scotland, then it is not unlikely that there would be political consequences.

[2] Regardless of whether Carmichael is found to have committed an offence or not, the basis for his defence (as outlined in the original “skeleton” submission to the court) is likely to be politically damaging. If that is brought into focus via his having to give evidence, then we can discuss the political fall-out. If he is not examined, then the consequences can be contained.

I’ll make one final comment about the Carmichael case and then wait for the verdict by the electoral court.

I had read the comments by both William Chalmers and Heather Green. Chalmers seems to share my scepticism that the case falls within S106 – but maybe I am interpreting his comments that way because of my own views.

Heather Green’s comments do appear to be not those of an eminent jurist (which I accept that she is) but someone who has decided views on the matter irrespective of the applicable law.

Whatever the outcome, the petitioning electors from Orkney and Shetland are to be applauded for taking steps to launch the case. Though they do so in the formal name of electors in their own constituency, they are voicing also the interests of all voters in condemning unfair campaigning tactics

It is unfortunate but true that all parties indulge in unfair campaigning tactics.What Carmichael did was stupid and unethical but hardly critical to the outcome of the GE. I would be very happy if the electors in his constituency kicked him out at the next election – in any case his political career is finished. But…. except in the most extreme cases, the remedies in a democracy should be political rather than legal.

Behind the egg and bacon tie
The gentle smile and the blue eye
He dwells on cricket and thinks
That Corby may not do much harm
If he retains the monarchy
Offers counsel though not privy
And – though to the City most displeasing –
Saves village post offices and corner shops
Through quantitative easing

“Interesting call from Chuka Umunna for people to unite behind Corbyn this morning. I think he’s come to terms with the fact that with the Labour selectorate as it is, he won’t be leader any time soon.
Let’s home he doesn’t mean get behind him Brutus style.”

‘We will get behind the new leader; and when approaches the cliff edge, push.’

In seriousness, it’d be a smart move on Corbyn’s part (should he win, which is no forgone conclusion whatever anyone may thing) to appoint Umunna to a big role, perhaps Chancellor. That would work to kill the anti-business angle, as well as head off any discordant rebellion.

At any rate I think Umunna is angling for a job of some sort – I doubt he’d be content to sit on the backbenches.

I’m in line for a pay rise and may purchase a Sunseeker 65 cruiser so go ahead with the building of the marina. I’m going to call my boat “Brahan Seer” and I predict in about a decades time I will be sailing her up the Beauly Firth and onto Strathpeffer.

Con 12% on both, LD 7% on both – so a remarkable consistency for all parties between the two ballots – with the one exception of SGP folk tactically (or just no Green candidate to vote for) SNP in the constituencies

I would put it down mostly to no Green candidate on the constituency for the Greens. The SNP are up 6% on the list at 50% from 2011 but nearer the election we might see some tactical voting on the list.

Thanks for the discount, My Pay rise is a modest one (5%) when compared to the MP’s but it will do me.

“Umunna’s speech, and follow up interview on the Today programme, were viewed by some as a transfer day deadline style “come and get me plea” to his presumptive leader. The odds on him becoming shadow chancellor have already been slashed from 33-1 to 5-1.

But if you listen to him carefully, he was in fact laying out a series of “red lines” for Corbyn. These included Europe, national insurance increases, Nato withdrawal, a mass renationalisation program, People’s Quantitative Easing, unilateralism. In effect he was placing the ball in Corbyn’s court. If he was prepared to compromise on these issues, there was scope for dialogue.”

Only Tory voters have more dissatisfied than satisfied with Nicola – which will cheer up most of the rest of us. :-)

I’m always dubious about “who has the best policies” questions. Seems more likely that most voters (or indeed party members) have little clue as to policy detail, but assume that the party they plan to vote for has the best.

Leaving aside the referendum question, it’s good to have a Holyrood poll.

Obviously good for the SNP, but also very good for the Greens.

For the Tories, their problem is that Ruth Davidson’s relative popularity (43% satisfied, behind only Nicola Sturgeon and to a much lesser extent Patrick Harvie) hasn’t translated in to any extra votes for them. In fact, that poll has them falling back from 2011.

The Lib Dems have, at best, stalled their decline. Labour are in a real mess and it’s interesting that it doesn’t like Corbyn will help them much if at all.

It seems to me that what we have seen and are seeing in Scotland is a good illustration of the limits of opinion polling. During the referendum campaign, even when the yes vote was increasing in polls, there was no corresponding increase in the SNP(/Green) voting intention. I wonder if that was because people answered the voting intention question quite traditional without much thought because there wasn’t actually an election on, while answering the independence question quite truthfully as they were then actually giving consideration to the issue.

After the referendum any consideration people had for politics (and we know from Anthony’s ‘have you heard in the news about’-questions that it is limited), switched to the (Westminster-) election. This lead to a swift and brutal change in declared views, and the current Holyrood polling I would argue is simply the extension of the polls since at least January and the Westminster election results adjusted for the usual Holyrood differential (i.e. Nats slighty up, Labour down, Greens up on second vote).

But by my theory we shouldn’t see a change in the independence polling numbers until after the Holyrood election…

With regards to Ruth Davidson it’s a strange one. The Tory leader is by far the most capable opposition MSP in parliament and the polls show she is also quite popular yet it hasn’t translated into anything tangible for the Scottish Tory VI.

I would had expected some of the remaining SLAB vote to drift over to the Tories because they presumably would be the more pro union and Tory’ish ones but there again the Scottish Labour leader is about as realistic as an Ethiopian Santa in Lapland.

Much was made of Corbyn filling up town halls across Scotland on his visit and even some on here were suggesting ole Corby was Labour’s trump card against the SNP. I never bought into it at all and if anything he may have depressed the Scottish Socialist vote and to a smaller extent The Castlemilk Scottish Women’s Rural Institute.

The Scottish Tories really would benefit from breaking away, especially given that the UK party has lately turned into the English National Party. As a bonus I suspect it would put paid to the “Scotland is left-wing, England is right-wing” canard that pops up all the time. Now would be the best time for them to do it as well, given the mess LiS are in.

I doubt it. For a lot of people, that is as dear a “fact” to them as any.

Everyone else in the political elite and in the media from Scotland to Australia would say “The Scottish Tories finally admit they have no place in Scottish politics and give up”. Then the new party, whatever it was called, would be called the Tory party, blamed for everything from death to taxes, demonised, and in no better position. If anything, it would be used as an argument for independence, and used as an argument for voting SNP. Hence why people with a nasty hatred of the Tories like the idea.

That’s not to say that it wouldn’t be a good idea for them. It just wouldn’t solve much, if anything. Ugly hatred and prejudice don’t shift with a name change or an organisational adjustment.

You may well be right but the last Conservative leadership election was essentially fought between Ruth Davidson who opposed a separate Scottish party and Murdo Fraser who proposed one. Difficult to see how Davidson could switch track now although her lines in the sand do tend to be moveable a her views on further devolution show.

I agree on the points made by anarchists unite in reference to Mr Corbyn finding room in his team for chuka Umunna who strikes me as both ambitious and pragmatic and does seem to have his finger on the pulse in matters relating to business both large scale and of the aspirational self employed if Mr Corbyn in his proclamations to be a consensual leader can modulate and finesse some of his more challenging views on foreign affairs and defence and is genuine in his professed wish to find places in his shadow cabinet for those figures in other wings of the party he and chuka could potentially be quite a formidable combination and with the addition of the likes of Burnham , Creasy , Jarvis and others could form a strong team with a broad church appeal .

Ummuna wants a job, but he wants to have some authority and policy making power within it. In essence Ummuna is recognizing that Corbyn doesn’t want the party to split – Ummuna is giving him a route out of that potential dilemma, but he wants him to negotiate on certain policies (to his wing content). If you’re going to negotiate the terms of your entry with any strength you don’t start by doing a Clegg and capitulating on everything.

If Ummuna does take the job the likelihood is that Nato withdrawal and unilateralism will be dropped; PQE will be put into the box marked ‘needs more thought/consultation’; an agreement on nationalization of certain industries (i.e. ones that poll popularly, like railways, but not others, like energy); a rough agreement on Europe (perhaps a MPs can make up their own minds view); with national insurance increases likely kept – though the amount of the increase will be ‘under discussion’.

Also worth noting the red-line that’s conspicuous by its absence: the anti-austerity angle Corbyn wants to go for. Ummuna has selected his red-lines carefully to all be things that Corbyn would likely be open to negotiating on, for one reason or another, and, indeed, on most of them he has indicated in the past that they are works in progress.

I’m chewing the cud of the Labour leadership election – and I’m about to move house – from sunny Oval to Benson….from where I will at least see the world that’s England in its authentic blue hue.

It feels to me like Ed did Labour once last disservice in fleeing the field of battle when defeat was called. I’m pretty sanguine however that in doing so he behaved no better or worse than William Hague in 2001. Here I think there is also an instructive comparison – the Conservative Party is that aftermath chose Ian Duncan Smith to carry its standard. A defeated party often looks to its core beliefs in the face of loss – it is after all part of its survival mechanism and as often again its collective head shakes wistfully and it sighs to itself – if only we had really had a proper leader who really thinks like us then surely we’d win….

It might however be a mistake to take a poor choice as a death knell although I think Labour could afford something a little riskier than the amplitudes of David Cameron’s political fixation on Tony Blair.

The response to the refugee crisis that has finally ebbed into Europe shows how far we have travelled from the post War optimism that the world might be very different to this post Neo-Liberal pessimism that things can never change.

Corbyn’s appeal comes from the very fact he untainted by politics as usual and does not follow the tight Media driven script that has driven modern politics into the stale bread of soundbites. My honest impression is it it less his policies and more that refreshing appearance that drives the cause. That said he is haunted by a lot of baggage of his own and the doyens of the Mail and Murdoch Press will be filleting his well meaning sayings and phrases into a few cruel one-liners.

I thought the last debate of Channel 4 actually demonstrated that Corbyn had enlivened all the others – though Kendall’s charms are perhaps an acquired taste. That said there has been quite a dose of misogyny in the election and I for one do not wish to add to it.

For the present the public is disengaged from politics and particularly the politics of opposition. Labour has to bear with the times and rather like the Conservatives after 2001 it has to wait upon events. Whether it has to wait another 10 years alike the Tories is another matter. We are long overdue for a recession and given we are hardly over the financial crash were one to come along it would be a nasty business with national governments still very indebted and personal debt in the West still very high by historical standards.

I left my Web Page bear the brunt of revelation when it comes to my analysis of the candidates and the problem facing Labour. For this site is all about polls and I thought of all things I’ve seen the Newsnight focus groups caught my attention.

The real concern of the public remains immigration – and Media confusion of migration and refugee has now become toxic. The public often says it likes clear choices it however does not mean it will choose boldly when one is on offer.

We in the West are slowly walking away from the post War shared commitments that made the UN and ECHR. Each step we take takes us further into uncharted waters. Each step we take makes many feel uncertain and in those uncertain times voters will choose safety first. The last time we found ourselves in this predicament Dr Stanley Baldwin was at the helm and he passed command to his Chancellor – one Neville Chamberlain.

The question made for Labour to answer is who can beat George Osborne. I suspect the best answer to a maiden’s prayer in this case may be in the form of a maiden herself. But it may take two leadership elections to get the party to marry the right bride.

As a historical note, there wasn’t a huge amount of good-will towards the Germans of Eastern Europe in Britain (or elsewhere) in the post-war period, and not just because of their association with the German nation-state.

“It’s quite a turn around but I hope it doesn’t start the proverbial debate on the price of oil or Scottish olives on UKPR from the resident experts.”

———

Don’t worry Allan, we’ve yet to have a proper convo about the price of oil, ‘cos when it crops up Indy peeps like to change the subject. To the banks, claims of how anti-scots it all is, and even… Austria!! You’re wanting to stop talking about it before it’s even cropped up. Which is weird because for some resident experts, all roads lead to Scotland. Just not the oil. (Except when it suits…)

Anyway, this is Salmond’s favourite site so we must be doing summat right, and where else is he gonna learn how to get oil prices right? But there are more pressing issues at the moment, like Corbsie, Murray in the U.S. Open, and England against the Aussies…

“For the present the public is disengaged from politics and particularly the politics of opposition.”

——–

Funnily enough, in my world, the reverse seems to be true. Peeps seem keener to talk politics. Particularly immigration. Which can disturb the fragile tranquility of a Carfrew’s day, but at least more engaged I suppose…

Listening to Radio 4 on the way to work, it occurred to me that the right of the Labour Party, have finally realised that the likely winner in few weeks will be Corbyn.

They perhaps have realised that the huffing and puffing and portents of doom haven’t worked (and actually been counter-productive).

They also realise they have nowhere to go splitting the party, given the lack of membership support and electoral support for them, and the financial backing that would be likely to be very meagre. The unions would strongly back a Corbyneque Labour Party, but who would back Chuka et la??

So they will quietly fall in line behind JC, and keep their powder dry. Perhaps they will engage superficially, but also will keep their Brutus-like daggers to hand too.

Listening to Radio 4 on the way to work, it occurred to me that the right of the Labour Party, have finally realised that the likely winner in few weeks will be Corbyn.

They perhaps have realised that the huffing and puffing and portents of doom haven’t worked (and actually been counter-productive).

They also realise they have nowhere to go splitting the party, given the lack of membership support and electoral support for them, and the financial backing that would be likely to be very meagre. The unions would strongly back a Corbyneque Labour Party, but who would back Chuka et la??

So they will quietly fall in line behind JC, and keep their powder dry. Perhaps they will engage superficially, but also will keep their Brutus-like daggers to hand too.